A thorough and profound description/ argument and
conclusion, together with extensive replies

Concerning the question

Whether Women are Human Beings or
not?

Put together mostly from Sacred Scripture, the remainder
from other authors and experience itself / The German not earlier seen in
print: but now available for everyone's good instruction.

Dedicated to the female sex / in their defence as they
deserve / comically written and published in the form of a conversation.

By a special lover of love and of modesty, anno 1617.

Printed in the year 1618

[Foreword]

To the well intentioned
reader

As is known, quite often disputations and similar
treatises have appeared in print regarding the question whether women are human
beings or not.

Without doubt from these booklets arguments are drawn,
translated into German, and quoted at random to the annoyance of the female
sex.

These arguments are here presented in logical order and
provided with replies that refute and disprove them.

So that both men and women can read the same

with special benefit [to each].

May it go well with you!

______________

[Translators note: We
publish this text because it illustrates the theological prejudices against
women operative during the period of which the Congregation for Doctrine
states: Since that period (the Middle Ages) and up to our own time, it
can be said that the question [of womens ordination] has not been raised
again, for the practice has enjoyed peaceful and universal acceptance
Inter Insigniores §
7.]

Good morning, Reverend Father Eugene, how are you? Do
you still fancy women so much? I understand that even in your old age, if your
status stood not in the way, you would gladly marry.

Father Eugene:

Thanks my dear Andrew, you excel in cracking jokes, just
watch that you won't regret it. And I can honestly see no reason on my part why
I should be your enemy. Religious people like us are usually easily upset in
conscience, aren't we? Ha, ha!

Brother Andy:

Well, I know plenty of good reasons why women should
upset us! I could tell you a lot about it - and how could it be different?

Father Eugene:

I'd love to hear them. Come, let's enter this bookshop
here on the side, as if we wanted to inspect a small booklet while people leave
the Church after Mass. There we can discuss the matter to our heart's
content.

Brother Andy:

The shop assistant will watch us and may chase us out!

Father Eugene:

How does he know what we are saying to each other,
lets say: about this little booklet? You don't need to be afraid on that
score!

OK, I don't want to keep you longer than necessary. There is this
argument against the widespread error as if women are human beings. As I said,
it's extremely common! And I give you to consider: in the whole of Sacred
Scripture, nowhere do we read, either explicitly or implicitly, that women are
human.

Father Eugene:

Ha, ha, ha! That would be strange, indeed! Seek and
you shall find. Seek to spome extent, I mean, for though I didn't come
prepared, I remember enough texts to show that it can be found both explicitly
and implicitly. (1) Explicitly: In the Old Testament (Ex 13): "Dedicate to me
(God says) every firstborn delivered by any mother among the children of
Israel, both among people and cattle." In the New Testament, do the Gospel
Stories not call Christ the Son of a Human Being - "born of a woman, Mary (Gal
4)." (2) Implicitly: In the Old Testament, "Abigael, a woman of great
intelligence" (1 Sam 25). "An intelligent wife is a gift from the Lord" (Prov
19). Also in Heb 2: "Christ has taken Abraham's seed" -- the seed of a human
being, not of an angel, as the Apostle argues. And now it is the seed of the
woman which "treads on the head of the serpent" (Gen 3). And Peter the Apostle
says (1 Pet 3): that there were souls (that is in the language of Sacred
Scripture, human beings with intelligence) in the Ark of Noah (which also held
Noah's wife, Gen 7). Not to mention so many other texts!

I can't dispute that argument, but it has little power
to prove the matter under discussion. For example, you mention Mary, Christ's
mother, but that is not to the point, for three reasons which I will briefly
indicate. To begin with, Mary is a human being, but not by nature, only through
grace, for the angel said to her: "You are full of grace." We never find such
an expression mentioned about other women. What do you say to that?

Father Eugene:

That Mary, God's Mother, was a human being she had by
nature, just like other people. Through grace she became a blessed human
being, even the most blessed under women.

Brother Andy:

In the second place we find this dissimilarity: Mary,
the blessed Mother of Christ, may rightly be called a human being because she
gave birth without the help of a man. Only if other women were to give birth
without men, could we call them human beings, but not before.

Father Eugene:

Mary gave birth without a man (1) not as if she had
this power in her of her own accord, but through the working of the Holy
Spirit. (2) She didn't give birth to an ordinary human being, but to the
Messiah and Saviour of the world. That's why it's not necessary that the same
happens to other women.

Brother Andy:

In the third place, how is it that Christ says that among all born from
women, no one is greater than John the Baptist? Why did he not say this of
himself, since he is much greater than John the Baptist? I can see no other
reason except that He, Christ, was born from a human being, but John was born
from a woman.

Father Eugene:

Here there is really no talk of nature or origin
according to the flesh, but of anyone's achievement and external status. Among
all those born of women no one is greater than John the Baptist, who was raised
to such a high dignity by God that he could point out the incarnate Saviour by
hand, prepare the way for him and be his angel and precursor. In the second
place, Christ (while seeming less in his external, despised status) is still
greater than John because, whereas he is and remains the Messiah and Saviour of
the world, John is only his servant.

What you quoted before, namely that women have
intelligence, proves nothing. Consider that also angels and devils have
intelligence and yet they are not and never will be human beings.

Father Eugenius:

By intelligence, first al all, human beings differ not
from angels or other spirits, but from dumb animals under which you would have
to reckon women if they possessed no intelligence. (2.) Moreover, it has much
less to do with an angel's intelligence than with a human intelligence, which,
since human beings consist of both soul and body, is more earthly and
impressionable. In these texts only human intelligence is meant. That is why
also women have to be considered human.

What? Intelligence? If women were to possess a really noteworthy
intelligence, why are they forbidden to hold any office that requires
authority?

Father Eugene:

Dear friend, don't you think (1) that more is required
for holding an office than just intelligence, namely public status, experience,
a strong constitution, constancy in words and deeds, and more such qualities,
that agree more with a man and are given to him in preference to a woman? (2)
Women are forbidden to hold any office when there are suitable men who can hold
them. When suitable men are missing, as examples show, women are not held back
from offices, especially worldly responsibilities. Yes, we see that often God
achieves more through women than he could have achieved through men. This is
clear from [the life of] Empress Irene, Margaret of Denmark who is also called
Semiramis, Catherine Cornelia, queen of Cyprus, Elisabeth, queen in England,
etc. etc. It remains therefore true that women, as truly intelligent creatures
of God, are truly human beings by nature. That is why they can speak, be
prudent and clever, as only human beings can.

What? Speak, you say? This point being in their favour carries no
weight. Think about it, even some birds can be taught to speak. Moreover, also
Bileam's donkey spoke (Num 22). But they were no human beings because of this
spark of intelligence.

Father Eugene:

There is a huge difference. (1) With regard to birds,
they don't speak by nature, but only when their tongue has been loosened and
guided by human hand. (2) Moreover, the few words they manage are incomplete
and unintelligible. (3) Should this kind of speaking not be deemed to be of the
same nature as when a dog jumps up and barks on hearing its name, rather than
ascribe it to intelligence? For both these cases belong rather to the external
senses which human beings have in common with animals and are due to habit. (4)
Bileam's donkey can be explained in this way that it was made to speak by a
special intervention of God who wanted Bileam thrown down. But we are
discussing another kind of speaking, the kind that comes from nature and that
arises from intelligence. Otherwise the members of the human body that were
created to be means and instruments of speech, are useless.

On the other hand, speaking without intelligence is like not speaking at
all, as you will readily admit. But women speak without real intelligence, as
is clear from the Apostle Paul's order that women should be silent (1 Cor 14).
From this follows that women's speaking counts for nothing and they should not
be regarded human.

Father Eugene:

Yes, (1) to speak correctly or with intelligence means
commonly to speak understandably, clearly and with circumspection as indicated
by reality. Who does not speak in that way, his/her speech counts for nothing
and is as a useless blast on the trumpet. Accordingly, to say the right thing
with intelligence regarding important matters, as in religious discussions and
other debates, or otherwise in the praiseworthy exercise of devotion and other
virtues, means: to express and present everything intelligently and for the
proper edification of those present. But, although women mostly fall short in
all this as also men do, women do not otherwise lack this proper, intelligent
form of speech. (2) The Apostle Paul orders women to keep silent not as if they
were not capable of intelligent speech or would overreach themselves, but in
order to establish and maintain proper order in the churches of Corinth, to
avoid that anyone who is not called to this, would just follow her own likings
and preach. And it would, also in a worldly sense, be an abuse if a woman were
to publicly take over in the presence of men and would want to preach to them.
Apart from this, I am convinced that we should not be ashamed to learn
something good and wholesome also from women. (3) It is however known that
unfortunately women, especially evil ones, often do not speak the right thing,
that is, they don't speak about the things which it is right to speak about, or
in the proper manner.

There's something left in this argument that needs discussion. You have,
against my opinion, put forward that women should be considered truly
intelligent human beings because they are prudent and clever. But, my dear
Father, excuse me for saying as a friend: that does not support their having a
human nature. For with regard to prudence and cleverness, we have Christ's
teaching (Mt 10): "Be clever as serpents and simple as doves". And in Prov 10
we read: "You lazy man, learn from the ants". Only, yes only knowledge of God
makes human beings, but women have their knowledge, the little they possess,
from men. That is why they claim the title of human being in vain.

Father Eugene:

The cleverness (1) of snakes, ants and other animals
does not spring from their mind, but is an instinct of nature, that is: a spur
or a drive of nature provided to maintain life and avoid mishaps. This instinct
lies inborn in all living creatures, but may not be compared to the prudence of
a human being. (2) Knowledge of God saves human beings, but, properly speaking,
it does not make them human. For humanness comes from nature, of which God self
is Lord and Creator. (3) It does not matter where women get their knowledge
from or how little of it they possess, as long as they don't lack it. For there
is no doubt that with regard to such a weak vessel it is true: "My power is
strong in the weak" (2 Cor 12).

Enough about that! Hear this further argument: Only that person is a
human being who is created in God's image. Woman, however is not created in
God's image, but as Imago imaginatae imaginis, that is: an image copied
from an image of God, namely the man. And as man reflects God's honour, so
woman reflects man's honour.

Father Eugene:

If man has been created in God's image, the same will
apply to woman. The reason: she is Imaginis imaginatae Imago, as you
say, an image of the imaged image of God, the man. Compare this with the
following: if a painter or sculptor has produced an image of himself, but then
wants to have more copies of it for convencience's sake, if he makes the copies
from the first copy, will they thereby cease to be his image? The same applies
here. That is why God himself says: "Let us make the human being, an image like
unto us" (Gen 1). And (in Gen 2): "It is not good that the human being should
be alone, I will make him a helper." Secondly, the argument turns against you
when you call woman the honour of man. According to the teaching of the Apostle
Paul (1 Cor 11), would a not-human being be an honour for a human
being?

In this matter you have to remember two things, the first of which is
this. You are right in recalling the establishment of marriage. Woman is called
man's helper and is given to him to give birth [to children]. But as little as
the pen is the writer, or the needle the seamstress, so is woman no human
being, but only his helper.

Father Eugene:

Precisely from that it can be proved that women are
human beings. For (1) they are called man's helper, and even that they are
there for him, or as the words literally say, they are simile sibi, that
is: like himself. By this they are distinguished not only from all the tools
and instruments that help man in his work, but also from housekeepers, servants
and other people who also assist him, but who after their assistance and
service leave him to go where they want. To this belongs also the fact that
Adam himself called woman she-man (Gen 2). Secondly, woman is made
companion to man for the propagation of the human race (that is, of other human
beings). Yes, as you too will not be able to deny, she is only lent to him and
entrusted to his diligent care. Therefore the previous comparison you made is
not to the point. There is a palpable difference bwteen a woman on the one hand
and a pen or needle on the other.

To raise the other point, God says to Adam: "You will dominate the birds
in the air, the fish in the sea and all animals on earth". That is why woman
too is subjected to man as [any other] bestia [=wild animal], and must
those people be out of their mind who contend that a woman should be called a
human being.

Father Eugene:

That reminds me precisely of what Moses, the man of
God, said. His exact words are these: "Let us make human beings, an image in
our likeness, who dominate the fish in the sea, etc. And God created the human
being in his image, and he created them man and woman, and God blessed them an
said: Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subject them and
dominate the fish in the sea, etc. " (Gen 1). First, it is clear from
this that both man and woman enjoy domination over the earth and its animals
according to God's intention and his explicit will. Secondly, if God had
entrusted and given such dominion on earth to Adam before woman was created,
how could God have reckoned woman among the bestiae and animals that had
already been created and that were passing before Adam's eyes (Gen 2)? The term
bestia [=wild animal] and others like it may well be applied to wicked,
unnatural women, but we are speaking here of nature, and of the name human
being that flows from it.

The Latin word homo [= human being] derives from humus [=
soil]. That's why a woman cannot be or be called a human being, because she
arose not from the soil, but from a bent rib.

Father Eugene:

First, the derivation of the Latin word homo
from humus has been solemnly affirmed in the warning which God speak to
the first human being: "You are soil and to soil you will return." (Gen 3). At
the same time, however, as I proved before, the wife, an image copied from the
first image Adam, is nonetheless herself also an image of God. Here too, woman
built from a rib (that is earth and taken from earth), is earth herself and a
human being. She also dies in the same way as the man. (2) The fact that woman
was not directly created from earth, does not only diminish her excellence in
any way, it rather increases and enlarges it since she had her origin from more
noble material that had previously been part of a human body. (3) Moreover,
among scholars arguments based on the derivation of a word, especially when
they are unsure and controversial, are looked upon as small-minded and fragile.
Also, Julius Caesar Scaliger, who ranks in our time as the grandmaster of
etymologists, derives this word homo not from humus but from a
Greek word which means: at the same time, in one heap,
or together -- which shows that the human being was created as a
couple, as man and wife.

Christ himself does not refer to the Canaanite woman as a human being,
but calls her a dog.

Father Eugene:

She is called a dog, not in itself and for its own
sake as if she were a dog or another brute animal in nature, but in comparison
to the Jews who were at the time the true children of God, on account of the
covenant of grace which God had concluded with them.

More about that argument later! What me strikes just now is that the
Holy Apostles (Jn 4) were shocked when they saw their master speak to a woman
[= the Samaritan woman]. Surely no mystery lies in this!

Father Eugene:

First, with regard to the woman with whom the Lord
Christ spoke, there were good reasons for the disciples to be shocked. In a
word, she was a suspect sinner in evil repute. (2) The mystery that lies hidden
here is the overwhelming mercy of God that is offered through his beloved Son
to all human beings who accept his word in ear and heart. As men or women they
may have sinned as severely as they could, [God is merciful] if only they do
penance. This counts not against women, but for them.

The Lord Christ says (Mt 24): "Woe to women who are pregnant or who
suckle." If woe applies to them, how can they be saved.

Father Eugene:

Remember (1), the question we discuss is not whether
they can be saved but whether they are human. But I notice that you want to say
that only human beings will be saved. (2) The reply is that two kinds of woes
are found in Scripture, a temporal and an eternal one. Christ meant to refer to
the temporal troubles which pregnant and sucking will experience especially at
the time of the terrible destruction of Jerusalem. This may not be applied to
the eternal woe, which is related to eternal damnation. (3) But with regard to
the temporal suffering of Christian women, it is not only not harmful to them,
but beneficial for their salvation, as the Apostle Paul teaches (1 Tim 2) when
he says: "Woman will be saved through childbearing" (which cannot happen
without suffering, pain and fear, Jn 16), so she remains in faith and love and
in her sanctification throughout the childbearing process!

Original sin does not come from the mother, for the Law commanded that
every male person should be circumcised. Well, women are not circumcised,
therefore they are not human.

Father Eugene:

It is wrong (1) to assume that original sin does not
come from the mother as much as from the father. For David says in Psalm 51: "I
am born from sinful seed and my mother conceived me in sin". (2) And as to what
you want to prove from women not being circumcised, is far-fetched. For outside
the Jewish commonwealth there were numerous men who had not been circumcised
and yet were affected by original sin and passed it on to their children,
moreover also the Jews possessed original sin before circumcision came to
them.

When women sin, they don't sin as human beings, but as other animals
do.

Father Eugene:

Sinning (1) is and remains sinning whoever sins. (2)
You could as well say this about men that when they sin, they don't sin as
human beings but as other animals, that is: they act as and put themselves in
the position of non-intelligent animals which do not know God nor keep him
before their eyes. I wish to God they would not often, with their beastly
behaviour, outdo the wild animals themselves!

You mentioned earlier, quoting the Apostle Paul, that the wife will be
saved through childbearing, and from that you want to make women human beings,
but you fail miserably. The reply is obvious, namely, animals too give birth
with pain but that does not make them human beings.

Father Eugene:

On this you must note: (1) Since this punishment
during delivery was imposed by God on the first woman on account of the fall,
something which is not said about animals without intelligence, women have
drawn this pain on themselves. (2) Women should be considered human beings on
account of their childbearing not because they give birth with pain, but rather
because they give birth in a human way and they give birth to human beings. (3)
If animals too at times give birth with pain, this cannot be compared with the
pains of a woman who is a so much more noble and tender
creature.

Before we start on another argument, I would like to know - as it were
by the way - whether your defence of women does not go against your religious
Order, the praiseworthy Society [of Jesus], as it goes against my Order. For I
have at times reflected: shouldn't we both, to safeguard our concience, be
talking against women rather than in favour of them?

Father Eugene:

(1) We are talking here confidentially, so that we
don't imply more than what we are actually talking about. (2) It is the custom
among scholars to argue in favour of both parties in a debate. (3) Who could
blame us for being concerned about women when the Lord Christ himself in
Scripture often pays attention to them. Yes we should pay attention to them,
especially in a philosophical discussion, since we ourselves as much as other
people derive from them. We are men and only that.

I agree, but what do you say about the slander by heretics that Pope
John VIII was a woman? From that it would follow that women are human beings.
But I don't accept it.

Father Eugene:

Oh stop! Please, don't talk about it. By that [story]
an indelible stain has been cast on us Catholics. Need we be surprised that
even the Baptist historians have not ceased blabbering on about it? For me I
find that Bellarmine, Baronius and others have provided sufficient contrary
evidence, so why bother about those outsiders?

So far our little discussion on the side. But is it not so that all the
evil that women have done according to Scripture is praised in them, and all
guilt is put on men, as on the human beings. The shameful incest of Lots
daughters is justified by their father, Rebecca deceives Isaac to get his
blessing for Esau, Thamar is commended for her fornication, the whore Rahab
betrays her own people and this is reckoned her to justice. Jael strangles
Sisera and is called blessed for it. Finally, even Christ himself has not
allowed the woman caught in adultery to be punished. These women have not been
penalised for their crimes.

Father Eugene:

Hold on, dear Andrew, or you'll keel over! For (1) it
is wrong that in the Scriptures women are praised for the evil they have done.
Also, its wrong that all guilt is laid on the men. For even when some of
the crimes committed by women have affected men, the women were not excused for
whatever evil there was in them, rather they were held accountable as much as
if they had been committed by men. For example, Lots vice is squarely
imputed to the man, that is him as father, because he allowed himself to get
drunk and consciously let himself be seduced to incest, but the daughters are
not excused for the fact that they so caused the old man to fall. Rebecca
deceived Isaac, but not for some evil purpose but showing a praiseworthy
prudence, through which divine providence was visibly at work. And what next?
Was Thamar praised for her fornication? Not al all. Also, Rahab is applauded
(Heb 11) not for having been a whore and traitor, but because of her faith and
it was her faith that was reckoned her to justice. Jael is praised because of
the heroic deed done to Sisera. Finally, Christ did not want to punish the
woman caught in adultery and he would not justify other private persons to
punish her. The reason was: it was neither his job nor theirs, but belonged to
the secular authorities.

You can say what you like, dear Eugene, I still cant accept that
women are human beings. For if you find the previous argument weak, what do you
think of this one? Women and their daughters are not human beings because they
do not rise [on the last day]. Why, my friend, will we not marry at the
resurrection? Precisely because there will be no women in heaven, since we will
all be like Gods angels. And what are the dear angels of God? They are
certainly all men and not women!

Father Eugene:

You lay the answer on my tongue! (1) At the
resurrection we will not marry, reason - because we will be like Gods
angels. The Lord himself gives this reason and he teaches at the same time that
this will not stand in the way of the resurrection of either men or women. (2)
You are mixing up the condition of our life on earth with the condition of our
life after the resurrection, as far as saved married people are concerned. For
then neither men nor women will be interested in marrying or other things of
the flesh, but they will altogether enjoy themselves in Gods sight,
worshipping and praising him. (3) It is ridiculous that you make angels men,
that is, in your opinion, they are just ordinary human beings.

Brother Andy:

Will women rise? Where is it written? Yes, we read about the daughter of
the headmaster (Mt 9) that the Lord Christ raised her up, but this was to
earthly life. You must notice that the Lord himself says on that occasion: "The
girl is not dead. She is asleep." For if she had been dead, he would not have
raised her. Since she was only asleep however, it wasn't strange that she could
rise again.

Father Eugene:

You are asking (1) whether it is written in Scripture
that women will rise [on the last day]? How can Peter then say (1 Pet 3) that
women (with the men) are heirs to the grace of life? They will inherit the
grace of life together with the men. Well, then they will rise and not remain
in death. (2) But that you, dear Andrew, explain the words of the Lord who
calls the death of a girl a sleep in Matthews gospel in this way that she
had not really been dead, is almost blasphemous and does not become a religious
person as you are. Think about it!

Explain it to me as you like, dear Eugene, for I cannot understand how
the Lord would otherwise have raised her up again. That is also what the
servant of the headmaster means when he came to his boss and told him that his
daughter had died. For he added: "Why bother the Master any further?" For he
knew that, once a woman has died, it was useless to call on Christs
assistance.

Father Eugene:

Pay attention. (1) Dont you remember at least
this much from your being a Christian? The Lord raised her up through his
omnipotent power. That was a easy for him as waking her up from sleep. (2) The
witness of the servant unnerves your previous contention that the girl was not
truly dead, but only asleep. (3) The ground why that servant did not want to
bother the Lord any further seems more his politeness, but it arose from the
fact that he considered the Lord only a human being. Dont you think so
too?

Brother Andy:

I know in that case what to believe. Since we are both gut Roman
Catholics, it will hopefully not too far that we also produce some relevant
facts from our Churchs legends. We read about the saintly Bishop Germanus
that he miraculously raised up a donkey but nobody will conclude from that that
the donkey will rise [to eternal life]. Therefore it does not follow from the
fact that the little daughter was raised to life, that women will rise again
[on the last day].

Father Eugene:

For us Catholics, indeed, (1) that story is
indisputable and no one should take exception to it. Unfortunately we
experience that heretics do not behave like that, rather they burst out in
derision. We should be aware of that. (2) Also, we should notice a
dissimilarity between Christ and Germanius. For Germanius did not raise the
donkey through his own power, as Christ raised the little girl. (3) When we say
that the fact of the girls raising by the Lord points to his raising all
women at the last day, then we are speaking of an example of the true and final
resurrection, namely that of intelligent creatures.

When we start from the essentials of our Christian Catholic doctrine,
who is so blind and brainless that he does not see and understand that women
are surely not human beings. For women dont get involved in words and
scriptures, but only in deeds.

Father Eugene:

Now youre really joking, Andrew! For in that
case they are good Catholics, dont you think?

It is an article of Christian faith in which women give themselves a lot
of credit! In the same way, as far as I know, they appeal to the article of the
resurrection of Christ, when they say: "Are we not human beings since Christ
after his glorious resurrection revealed himself first to women?" To that we
need to answer that, when Christ was born, he showed himself first to the ox
and the ass, yet the ox and the ass were never human beings.

Father Eugene:

The revelation of the Lord (1) only has meaning for
intelligent creatures for whose good he came into the world. (2) It is
unbecoming and laughable to say that the new born Saviour, a small child unable
to speak, showed himself to the ox and ass. Being seen by an ox and an
ass, and showing oneself to them are two different things.

As to laughing, that surely should not be at my expense, especially
concerning women. You have overlooked something in your answer, Father Eugene:
for you should have indicated the reason why Christ showed himself first
to women. Since you did not do so, will I take the trouble to make up for it.
It happened especially to ensure that his resurrection would be spread around
and communicated as soon and as efficiently as possible. For whatever a woman
knows, she passes on immediately not only to neighbours and close friends, but
soon the whole community, yes the whole town hears of it.

Father Eugene:

There are many reasons why Christ revealed himself
first to women. (1) I myself consider the best reason that it happened because
the women were the first to seek the Lord. The men, such as the
apostles, had hidden themselves and barred themselves in. They did not have the
courage to make such an early start as seeking the Lord on the third day after
his prophecy and promise. (2) You ascribe it to the loquacity and feebleness of
women. This would certainly have been useful to the Lord if he had lacked other
means. (3) You must remember that these were saintly and devout women (whom we
Catholics honour so much on that account). They announced the resurrection to
the disciples not with noise and fuss, but with the highest devotion and
modesty.

Right! They announced the resurrection. Just what I was going to point
out. For it is commonly known that women are to be rejected as witnesses and to
be counted as useless. Therefore the Lord did not use them as witnesses, but
only for propaganda.

Father Eugene:

Not for propaganda, (1) that was the task of the
Apostles in due course, but only to pass on the message to the disciples so
that these could come and see things for themselves, or at least remember the
Lords promise. (2) But that women are not accepted as witnesses in
secular courts, is not relevant here. There is good reason for it, but that
does not reduce them to being less than human. The same was indicated earlier,
namely why women cannot be appointed to public offices.

Look at Thomas, the doubter. Precisely for that reason he did not
believe the other disciples and accept that the Lord was risen, because they
had heard it only from women and not from men.

Father Eugene:

It contradicts (1) the statement of the disciples who
say: "We have seen the Lord" (Jn 20). They dont say: "The women
told us about him and his resurrection." (2) Yes, they had heard the same thing
earlier from the women, but this time they had seen it for themselves, as they
tell Thomas. (3) How can you blame the women, if Thomas did not believe them?
It was due to his lack of faith and his distrust of other
people.

How did the Apostle then believe at first that the women were mad when
these said that the Lord was risen? Well, it is such a strange and unusual
event to hear something from women that is intelligent and true!

Father Eugene:

The Apostles considered the words of the women
fools talk and monkey business (as Lk 24 shows), but who was to blame for
this? The women and their message, or rather the Apostles themselves? For
example, when heretics consider everything the Roman Catholic Church commands
to be idolatry and us idolators, as their writings and speeches manifest, is
that the fault of the Catholic Church, or their own fault? I believe it is
their own fault. The same applies here. (2) Notice also that St. Peter (whose
see has been inherited by our Father the Pope, as no one will deny) persuaded
by their message, dressed and ran quickly to the tomb, and saw for himself that
he was not there and risen. We can learn from this that if he had reckoned
women foolish and feeble, he would have disregarded their message and omitted a
good action. (3) It was mainly due to their lack of faith and fearfulness that
the Apostles gave so little credence to the women. That is why, though they
held the women otherwise to be trustworthy, they could not so easily agree to
them in this case until they themselves had seen and experienced it. And what
wonder is it that they did not believe the women, since they did not believe
the Lord, their master and the truth itself when he had so often foretold and
promised such a resurrection, yes, when he even showed himself to them after he
had risen from the dead?

The women have also no claim on the holy sacraments. If women [in the
Old Testament] were not circumcised, they should also not be baptised, for
baptism was instituted to replace circumcision. What has been done to them so
far, has been purely to avoid upsetting them.

Father Eugene:

Such a thing I have never heard a Catholic religious
say, and I dont believe that even the Holy Father the Pope has such an
unfriendly attitude to women as you have! The holy sacraments certainly are
meant for women. For (1) just as in the Old Testament they were considered
circumcised, through their men as mentioned earlier, so should also in the New
Testament baptism not be denied to them. (2) That they themselves are baptised
and in their own flesh in the New Testament we owe to a very wise dispensation
of God who has a wider view in the New Testament which is not only directed at
the Jews but also at the pagans. (3) Your opinion is also contradicted by the
fact that in the whole of Christendom women are baptised as much as men, and
this not only to avoid upsetting them, as you maintain, but necessarily and on
account of Gods command: "Go and teach all nations and baptise them in
the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."

But what is the sentence that follows on it? It says: "Qui
baptizatus [= male form in Latin], i.e. the man who believes and is
baptised", and not "qui fuerit baptizata [= female form in Latin], i.e.
the woman who is baptised". It also does not say: "salva erit [=
female form in Latin], i.e. she will be saved", but "salvus erit
[= male form in Latin], i.e. he will be saved". In this place you have
to pay attention to the letters that are used.

Father Eugene:

I am almost ashamed to reply to that! I wish there was
a schoolboy here who could speak for me! (1) As to the pronoun quis,
who, it means as much as "a human being whoever he or she may be",
that is: it refers to both genders. It applies without difference to both men
and women. Since in Christ there is no longer man or woman, as we have already
seen from the Apostle Paul. (2) As to the words baptizatus (baptised)
and salvus (saved), these are formulated as masculine in the Latin
language. But in the Greek language, as in our own mother tongue [German] this
does not apply. (3) Therefore it is utterly ridiculous that you maintain we
should pay attention to the letter here, and not to the example and the
mind.

The same is true with regard to the holy sacrifice of Mass or the
sacrament of the altar, as some call it. Christ celebrated this with his
disciples as with men and human beings. He did not allow women to approach the
table. Otherwise he would have had to start washing the feet of the women, if
he did not want to seem ill-mannered.

Father Eugene:

What are you saying now?! Andrew, you must have
watched all the business of women since you bring out so many things about
them. I thought I was the only one who was so interested in them, so that I
could take care of them and protect them! Ha, ha, ha! For though the Lord
Christ does not invite women to the table at the service of Holy Mass, even
less washed their feet beforehand, he has all the more wanted to commend them
to us, in order that we nourish them too [through holy communion], and not only
the men, as has been the custom for many hundreds of years, and also sprinkle
holy water on them, on their heads, and other limbs and also their feet. And
why should the abbess not wash the feet of her nuns, and the abbott that of his
monks?

To make a speedy end of it, my dear Eugene, what must I make of the word
in Jn 2 which Christ speaks to his mother: "Woman, what have I to do with you?"
If he does not want to have anything to do with his mother, how much
less with other women.

Father Eugene:

It is quite right, Andrew, that, as is becoming to a
Catholic Christian, you ask your question about the worthy mother of God with
more circumspection. For she may not be treated as just any ordinary woman. If
Christ the Lord did not want to be told what to do, it was not to oppose his
mother, but because it was not yet the time to perform a miracle (as he as
omniscient Saviour alone knew). Even so he decided to help the young couple
concerned and to please his mother.

St Paul also says that women should be veiled because they are impure.
It follows from it that women cannot be saved because nothing impure can enter
the Kingdom of God. And if they are not saved, I do not consider them human
beings.

Father Eugene:

The reason (1) why the Apostle tells women to be
veiled is not really that they are impure, because it is a question here of
public worship. He tells them to be veiled for the sake of good order, and to
show their obedience, or as the text literally says, because of the angels,
who, as Chrysostom explains, are their witnesses of obedience or disobedience.
(2) That women are sometimes held to be impure, belongs to the many defects and
weaknesses we have to put up with in life. (3) Such defects and shortcomings in
women as happens to them in life, do not detract from their salvation, as
little as their bearing children as we saw before.

Christ himself said: "Who wants to be perfect should give up on woman".
Thats why he took no wife, and thats why the holy Apostles got rid
of their wives, and advised other men to do the same.

Father Eugene:

It has to be understood conditionally that Christ
tells those who want to be perfect to leave their wife; if, namely, the woman
would oppose a man who wants to be perfect. Because he also says that one
should equally leave ones parents (Mt 19 and elsewhere). (2) He did not
marry himself because it contradicted his mission and his task in the world.
(3) The fact that the Apostles left their wives and so wanted to set an example
to others, should not be extended beyond the task they had to accomplish in
this world and the context of their own time. We are speaking here about the
ordinary life of people, not about the clergy in our own time.

I am keeping you too long, Father Eugene. Otherwise I could give you
many more arguments by which I can prove that women are no human beings.
Its no use that you contend that every creature gives birth to its own
kind, and that is why women must be human beings because, as mentioned earlier,
they do give birth to human beings. Also, its no use that someone may be
so bold as to tell a person to his face: "What? Was your mother a pig or a
dog?" For then we can reply: "My mother was a woman, and nothing more." And
note, when a woman produces a daughter, she gives birth to the same kind, for
she has given life to something equal to her a monstrum [=
abnormality].

Father Eugene:

Experience shows (1) that every creature gives birth to
a being according to its own kind. (2) Small wonder that women get impatient
when they are taunted as not being human, and then become personal! (3) The
giving birth is the same, whether the child is a son or a daughter, because she
can only give birth as she conceived from the man.

The giving birth may be the same, but the birth is not. For when,
as mentioned, the birth is a girl, it is a monstrum, as the mother
herself. And there is nothing new, as far as the sons are concerned, that women
also give birth to human beings who are not of the same kind as they are. For
from a horse or a mule, only a donkey is born, from horse shit (excuse the
expression) beetles, from sweat lice, from dust fleas, and so on. From a
philosphical point of view, one knows that a human being has a pure nature. But
woman is poisoned. The experience is found in her monthly flow, how harmful it
is. I need not say more about this.

Father Eugene:

Monstrum is in one word: erratum naturae
propter materiae inconstantiam, that is: a defect in nature because of an
irregularity of matter, as known from Aristotle. Well, be so cheeky to point
out such an erratum, a defect in nature, in women as they are born every
day in the unhindered course of nature? Sometimes also monstrosi partus
(miscarriages) of female gender are born, but the same happens with those
of male gender. (2) As to the unequal birth among cattle or insects, who does
not notice that these do not at all fit the birth of women? (3) If a human
being has a pure nature, from a philosophical point of view, so has woman. As
stated in this connection, also her monthly cleansing.

My final summary: however poisonous an animal can be, a woman is more
poisonous, yes more devilish and more malicious than the devil himself.
Thats why Sirach says: "It is better to live among lions and dragons than
with an evil woman". Although one can find quite a few of them who politely
hide their malice from people under conventional modesty, their inborn
character and nature remains in secula seculorum [in all eternity]! For
if one is good, a thousand will be against her. But if one is as keen as the
others on venomous malice, then no letter or seal of a Lord will be of use, for
women do not really want to leave the last word to anyone else. So they will
not be able to refrain from asking another question. Namely, if they are no
human beings, but beasts, to what animal should they be compared, so that they
follow its example?

Euripides gives them an answer to this. They resemble hyenas, that is
they are like: corpse-eaters, gluttons and wolves. If the women desire to know
for what reasons they are compared to this, then they should be told: this
corpse-eater, glutton, wolf has the head of a cat, the stomach of a wolf, and
the tail of a fox.

From cats women have it in their nature to swallow, lick, stick near
the stove, purr, prune, scratch and scrape, claw with sharp nails, hiss, spit,
seethe, and show a venomous mood.

From their wolfs stomach women have it in them never to be
satisfied, the grabbing, embezzling, pilfering and robbing, growing lazy,
greedy, harsh and bitter, having a big mouth and green eyes, being wild till
pinned down.

From the fox women draw every ploy, trick and deceit, the nestling in
strange nests, the being no good except for the bladder, and thats why
they can neither be cooked nor roasted. And just like the fox which is only
useful when skinned, so quite a few women are only of use when they die.

Father Eugene:

You are a Benedictine [= someone who blesses]. OK.
Beware that you dont become for pious women a Maledictine [= someone who
curses]. Use that kind of language only about evil women. I myself do
not doubt, yes I agree, that evil women should be painted in such or similar
colours and be exposed to the whole world.

But please, what we have discussed so far in great
confidence and for the sake of the spirit, take with you in good trust. And,
please, in the future leave out your teasing as if I love women - realise what
you are saying! I have done my best to make clear what I find good or evil in
this matter. See my right hand, and my trust. Goodbye!